Medical Equipment Donated to Developing Nations Usually Ends Up on the Junk Heap

Despite good intentions, life-saving medical donations often end up discarded or broken. New training programs aim to change all that

Medical equipment donations enable hospitals in developing countries to get their hands on expensive and much-needed technology. But there’s a growing concern that those donations do more harm than good. Hallways and closets often become cluttered with unused or broken-down equipment for which locals lack parts or training in how to make repairs. Outdated electrical systems groan under the strain of large medical devices, possibly compromising a hospital’s power.

“I think there is a great risk for every medical device donation that it’s going to hurt the recipient,” says Robert Malkin, a professor of the practice of biomedical engineering at Duke University.

Recently, a study of seven hospitals in Haiti found only 30 percent of the 115 pieces of medical equipment donated after the 2010 earthquake were working and 14 percent of the equipment could not be repaired. The study also found that some donated devices, such as incubators for premature babies, could never work in the hospitals, because they required a higher electrical voltage than is standard in Haiti.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates (pdf) that as much as 80 percent of medical equipment in some countries is donated or funded through foreign sources, but only 10 percent to 30 percent of the donations are ever put into operation. “There is no question that you can donate effectively,” Malkin says, adding the caveat that it takes a lot of effort to make sure everything is done right. For example, Malkin says organizations need to know what recipient hospitals or countries need. They also need to ensure the recipients have access to the right accessories and supplies to make the devices work properly. People need to be trained to use the equipment. And, of course, it also has to be shipped, delivered and installed. “That’s a lot of things to get right, and you need to do that with every piece of equipment,” he says.

Addressing the problem

Currently, WHO spells out the four principles of a good medical equipment donation (pdf): respect the recipient’s request; assure the donation will benefit the recipient; keep an open line of communication; and ensure quality. Malkin is part of the group tasked with rewriting those principles, which have not been updated since 2000. “We’ve tried to shift a lot more responsibility to the recipient,” Malkin says. Hospitals and medical centers requesting medical equipment donations would be expected to make sure they can repair the devices and get spare parts, he adds. Some countries have already stepped in to put a stop to donations of used medical equipment and devices from other countries. For example, some don’t allow incubators nor x-ray and dialysis machines to be shipped to their hospitals.

But Malkin says even new medical device donations come with risks for recipients, including not having access to the right spare parts such as the correct operating-room lightbulbs. “These are not trivial parts to find,” he notes. Instead, he says his organization, Engineering World Health (EWH), which works to improve care at hospitals in the developing world, has stopped shipping a lot of equipment overseas. “In EWH we feel that it’s more powerful to train the staff of the hospital to fix the equipment they have. So we ship very little new equipment,” he says.

Rwanda’s trial run

In 2009 EWH went to Rwanda to start training hospital technicians to manage, fix and maintain medical equipment. “We don’t have biomedical engineering courses in our universities or in our colleges,” says Didier Mukama, country director for EWH in Rwanda. “This was the first time there was formal academic training done here in Rwanda.”

Before EWH came to Rwanda technicians only handled electrical and plumbing problems, Mukama says. When medical equipment broke, hospitals would just request a new donation from another organization. “Basic things like the inventory of medical equipment were not even done, because most of the medical technicians didn’t even know the name of the equipment,” he says.

Malkin and his colleagues, who have been following the effect of the training on hospitals, says they’ve seen the amount of out-of-service equipment fall by almost half, and the technicians’ productivity more than double. Mukamasays the goal is for EWH to train two technicians from each of the country’s public hospitals. Several have already graduated, and dozens are still in training. “I’m really happy with what has been achieved,” he adds. “Before most of the technicians were not even allowed to touch the equipment, but now they are able to do most of the troubleshooting.”

Still, not everything is perfect. Mukamasays there are devices in disrepair because technicians have trouble finding spare parts. “I think the big elephant in the room that nobody had really figured out is spare parts,” Malkin says.

Aside from on-the-ground training, Malkin says he also attends medical technology conferences to present EWH’s work. Currently, about 130 organizations send medical equipment overseas, he says. Some have adopted responsible practices. “I think we’re making some progress,” he adds.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe